CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Quality Reliable Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and reviewed, including risks linked to seizures, mobility, pressure sores and distressing behaviour. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems and appropriate infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training relevant to people's needs and supported people with food, drink and healthcare. Staff were also found to follow the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in their care, supported to make choices and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's routines, communication needs, relationships and interests. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain community links and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, regular audits and systems for learning from incidents. People and staff were involved in decisions and said their views were welcomed.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Quality Reliable Care Limited was Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff training updates still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 November 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, four staff members and a visiting health professional. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found the home safe and well staffed. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, and staff knew how to safeguard people. People said staff were kind, respectful and knew them well. Care plans reflected people's needs, choices, communication needs and interests.
Staff had relevant training and worked with health professionals. The home was led by a registered manager, with regular audits and meetings. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection rating was also Good, published on 7 March 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“People were treated kindly by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Risks managed
The home had clear plans for health and safety risks, including seizures, mobility, pressure sores and distressing behaviour.
“Risks were assessed and managed to support people to be safe.” from the report
Personalised care
People helped develop their care plans, and staff respected individual routines, communication methods, religious needs and preferences.
“People were receiving personalised care and were involved in developing their care and support plans.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain important relationships, community links and individual interests, while also being able to choose not to join group activities.
“People were supported to maintain social links and interests that were relevant to them.” from the report
Visible leadership
The home had regular quality checks, staff meetings and systems for learning from incidents and making improvements.
“Management systems were effective in managing risks to the quality of the service.” from the report
Some training updates were outstanding
needs fixingThe manager had identified training gaps for some staff and refresher training that was due. Dates had been booked, but the report recorded this as a shortfall at the inspection.
“The registered manager had identified that some staff had training gaps and others needed an update.” from the report
- 01Which staff training gaps and refresher updates were outstanding at the inspection, and have they all now been completed?
- 02How often are agency staff used, and how does the home make sure they understand each person's care plan?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific communication needs, including accessible information if required?
- 04How are people's personal routines, religious needs and preferred activities recorded and kept up to date?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in planning for future or end of life care if this became relevant?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with care, premises, records, staffing, medicines and management systems reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but noted gaps in quality checks and limited flexibility in staffing.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked records, medicines, staffing, training and the home's systems.
The home was rated Good overall. Each of the five areas was also rated Good. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by trained staff, treated kindly and given personalised care.
There were some weaknesses. Quality checks had not been completed for five months before the inspection. Some care records and incident reviews also needed improvement. Staff said there was not always enough flexibility to respond when people's needs changed.
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs, preferences and histories. Inspectors saw patient, respectful communication and positive relationships.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. They knew people well and had a good understanding of people's individual needs and choices.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff were trained and checked their skills, including when people needed medicines only when required.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's mobility, personal care, communication, nutrition and preferred routines. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.
“Care plans were personalised and reflected the individual.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff received training linked to people's needs, including acquired brain injury and moving and handling. People could access doctors and other healthcare professionals when needed.
“Staff received regular and ongoing training which included essential training such as safeguarding, infection control and moving and handling.” from the report
Quality checks stopped
needs fixingThe provider had not completed quality checks for five months before the inspection. Audits had restarted, but inspectors recommended improvement in this area.
“However, the provider had not completed any quality checks for five months before this inspection.” from the report
Records and incident follow-up
needs fixingSome care records did not contain all the guidance needed, and incident records did not clearly show what had been done to prevent recurrence or identify wider patterns.
“Incidents were recorded but evidence of actions taken to prevent a reoccurrence was not clearly demonstrated and there was no overall analysis to identify themes and trends across the service.” from the report
Limited staffing flexibility
needs fixingStaff said there was enough time for usual care, but staffing could not always be adjusted when people's needs changed. This sometimes reduced the attention available to other people.
“Staff said they had enough time to support people, but there was not enough flexibility in the staffing levels to respond to people's fluctuating needs.” from the report
- 01How often are quality audits completed now, and who checks that actions from them are finished?
- 02How are care plans updated when risks change, including pressure sores, bedrails or behaviour that may challenge?
- 03How do you record and review incidents, and how do you check for repeated patterns?
- 04How do you increase staffing when someone needs end of life care or has fluctuating needs?
- 05How do you make sure people who want more outings and activities can take part regularly?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with visits on 6 and 7 February 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Quality Reliable Care Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Quality Reliable Care Limited →
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Quality Reliable Care Limited →
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.